| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:24 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> To: Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch> Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>, Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures (generic) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 03:50:12PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Hi Mel, > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:58:53PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > you are saing that the problem might be even older ? > > > > > > we do have 8GB ram and 16 GB swap, so it should not fail to allocate all that > > > often > > > > > > top - 14:58:34 up 19:54, 6 users, load average: 2.09, 1.94, 1.97 > > > Tasks: 451 total, 1 running, 449 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie > > > Cpu(s): 3.5%us, 15.5%sy, 2.0%ni, 72.2%id, 6.5%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st > > > Mem: 8198504k total, 7599132k used, 599372k free, 1212636k buffers > > > Swap: 16777208k total, 83568k used, 16693640k free, 610136k cached > > > > > > > High-order atomic allocations of the type you are trying at that frequency > > were always a very long shot. The most likely outcome is that something > > has changed that means a burst of allocations trigger an allocation failure > > where as before processes would delay long enough for the system not to notice. > > > > 1. Have MTU settings changed? > > no not to my knowledge > > > 2. As order-5 allocations are required to succeed, I'm surprised in a > > sense that there are only 5 failures because it implies the machine is > > actually recovering and continueing on as normal. Can you think of what > > happens in the morning that causes a burst of allocations to occur? > > the burts occur all day while the machine is in use ... its just > that I was writing this at noon so only the morning had passed. So > I compared things to the day before ... > Over the course of a day, how many would you see? By and large, it seems that the problem yourself and Frans are similar except his is a lot more severe. > > 3. Other than the failures, have you noticed any other problems with the > > machine or does it continue along happily? > > The machine seems to be fine. > > > 4. Does the following patch help by any chance? > > should I try this on vanilla 2.6.31.4 or ontop of your previous > patch? > Try on top of vanilla 2.6.31.4 first plase and if failures still occur, then on top of the previous patch. > we are running virtualbox 3.0.8 on this machine, virtualbox is using > the physical network interface in bridge mode access the network. > Could this have something todo with the problem ? > I do not know for sure. I'm assuming the configuration is the same on both kernels so it's unlikely to be the issue. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists